A Serious Question: A Bone to Pick

Originally posted by checkbaiter
scientists are not about to give up any ground in this matter.

What do you suppose your source meant by this phrase?

It sounds as if he pictures scientists as being devoted to territorial conquest, increasing the scope of the dominion of science. I don't think this is the case. That's not what 'empiricism' means.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
This is an unsatisfactory response I received on dinosaurs...I was expecting more, but......

I received your question on dinosaurs and thought I would throw some information your way. As a ministry we don't take any official stance on dinosaurs and where they fit into the creation but there is a lot of really good evidence that they did indeed exist ...[text shortened]... s matter.

Please let me know if you have anymore questions, I would love to help where I can.

Do you believe it when the Greeks spoke about cyclopses?

Or, do you recognize that their creative descriptions in their mythological
corpus are merely extensions of weird things they experienced, such
as an elephant's skull?

If you reject the Greek mythology, which is vast, entertaining and
remarkable, but utterly ridiculous from a scientific point of view,
why do you accept the same creative, interpretations of elephants,
hippos, and crocodiles as indicative of other creatures, like dinosaurs?

You answer, I anticipate, is 'Because the Greeks didn't have the Word
of God, and WE do.'

What this means is that you are using the Bible as the basis for
determining what the evidence must mean rather than taking the
evidence and letting it tell you what it means.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KellyJay
There wasn't a need to take millions, only different kinds from
there you'd get the various species we see today. The example
I most use would be the dog kind, you would not need every
type of dog, only two from there you could split into all the
various dog kinds there are today. Now how that worked out
as far as what makes up a kind, I don't know. ...[text shortened]... r pool of creatures
at the beginning fully developed than the evolutionist believes
in.
Kelly

I thought you and other creationists didn't believe in macro evolution, but that is exactly what you are proposing here. To quote Ronald Pine:

Another attempted Creationist solution to the problem of handling so many animals on the Ark is to say that, for example, instead of a pair of coyotes being cared for, along with a pair of dogs, a pair of gray wolves, a pair of red foxes, etc., really only one pair of animals of the “dog kind” had to be on the Ark. In other words, when God created all of the created kinds he created only one sort of dog-like animal, that is, only one dog-like “baramin.” Because only one “baramin” of dog-like animals was created, only two of these dog-like animals had to be on the Ark. Then, after the Flood, in the very short time period till now—only about 4,300 years by the standard Creationist reckoning—the Ark-borne pair of “dog kind” animals rapidly diversified into the 14 genera and 34 species of modern-day dog-like animals. Some Creationists even trace the hyena family back to the original “dog kind.” This would add another whole family of animals of 4 genera and 4 species. Incidentally, hyenas are reckoned to be much, much more distantly related to dogs than people are to apes. And so we see that the very same people who deny that evolution through natural selection can go farther than the species level find themselves proposing the existence of some agent of extremely rapid and profound change, far, far more rapid than anything ever conceived of by any evolutionary biologist. And, of course, all of this is supposed to have happened within historic times. Extensive evidence of these galloping phylogenetic changes, should, therefore, be found in the voluminous collections of bones taken from archeological sites, and in lots of geologically recent (“post-Flood&rdquo😉 sediments. Absolutely no evidence of these changes is found. Modern-day-type dogs, wolves, jackals, foxes etc. appear suddenly and fully formed in the very earliest Neolithic archeological sites. Where oh where are the required intermediate forms?

By this sort of reasoning, all of the members of the “cat kind” as well—lions, tigers, cheetahs, tabbies, etc.—need not have been on the Ark but only one pair belonging to the ancestral “cat baramin.” And so on for all the other sorts of animals. All of this is to make it appear that no near infinitude of ad hoc miracles would have been necessary to get all the animals safely onto the Ark in the first place and then to care for them for a whole year and then have them survive on the lifeless, moonlike landscape that must have resulted from the Flood.

Again, pathetic!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What do you suppose your source meant by this phrase?

It sounds as if he pictures scientists as being devoted to territorial conquest, increasing the scope of the dominion of science. I don't think this is the case. That's not what 'empiricism' means.

After briefly looking at some of the sites, probably the billions of years theory, since some of these dinosaurs were around during bible times.
That would be my guess.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
After briefly looking at some of the sites, probably the billions of years theory, since some of these dinosaurs were around during bible times.
That would be my guess.

I meant, why does he describe scientists' adherence to the billions of years theory as "refusing to give up ground"? Do you see it this way?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you believe it when the Greeks spoke about cyclopses?

Or, do you recognize that their creative descriptions in their mythological
corpus are merely extensions of weird things they experienced, such
as an elephant's skull?

If you reject the Greek mythology, which is vast, entertaining and
remarkable, but utterly ridiculous from a scientific point ...[text shortened]... t mean rather than taking the
evidence and letting it tell you what it means.

Nemesio

Cyclopses?...no probably not.


I don't even know what the evidence means. I think it is all inconclusive. I don't have the "expertise" on the matter. And I don't disregard science either. But you must suspect by now, that there is bias and a little stretch on both sides. That is, scientists on both sides.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I meant, why does he describe scientists' adherence to the billions of years theory as "refusing to give up ground"? Do you see it this way?

I don't know, when I have time I will spend a little more time at these websites, but I am not holding my breath to find anything conclusive about anything.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I thought you and other creationists didn't believe in macro evolution, but that is exactly what you are proposing here. To quote Ronald Pine:

Another attempted Creationist solution to the problem of handling so many animals on the Ark is to say that, for example, instead of a pair of coyotes being cared for, along with a pair of dogs, a pair ...[text shortened]... he lifeless, moonlike landscape that must have resulted from the Flood.

Again, pathetic!

I thought you and other creationists didn't believe in macro evolution, but that is exactly what you are proposing here.

I believe in changes within kinds, you start with a dog kind, you end
with a dog kind. You don't start with cell and end with a zebra.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay


I believe in changes within kinds, you start with a dog kind, you end
with a dog kind. You don't start with cell and end with a zebra.
Kelly

Why not start with a mammal kind with potential to differentiate into all the other kinds? Anyhow, it seems you agree with some aspects of evolution & disagree with others.